During late March, two
U.S. District Court Judges issued strong rulings in defense of equality for
minor parties. Neither case involved ballot access. Instead, the Michigan
ruling concerns which parties can get a list of presidential primary voters,
and the Connecticut ruling concerns discriminatory public funding. The American
Civil Liberties Union sponsored both lawsuits.

Michigan

On March 26, U.S. District
Court Judge Nancy G. Edmunds, a Bush Sr. appointee, struck down a law passed
last year, on the subject of which parties can get a list of the voters who
vote in presidential primaries. Green Party of Michigan v Land, 08-10149.

Michigan law says only
parties that got 20% of the vote in the last election may have a presidential
primary. The state has six ballot-qualified parties, but only the Democratic
and Republican Parties have a presidential primary. The other ballot-qualified
parties are Constitution, Green, Libertarian, and Natural Law (in Michigan,
the Constitution Party uses the name "U.S. Taxpayers Party").

The law passed last year
says that only parties with their own presidential primary may have the list
of voters who vote in presidential primaries. So, the law provided that the
Republican Party could get the list of who voted in the Republican presidential
primary and the Democratic presidential primary. The Democratic Party could
also get the list for both primaries. But, no one else could have the list.
It was a crime for anyone else to possess the list.

The list is very valuable,
because Michigan does not have registration by party. Furthermore, there is
no other record of which voters choose which partyís primary ballot.

The state argued that
the U.S. Supreme Court has approved discrimination against minor parties,
and cited some bad ballot access precedents, especially Jenness v Fortson.
But Judge Edmunds refused to accept the idea that because the U.S. Supreme
Court has sometimes injured minor parties, that therefore there is generalized
permission for states to discriminate against minor parties in all areas of
election law.

She said, "Defendantís
proposed approach to the Equal Protection Clause would strip the clause of
all meaning. Any statute could avoid running afoul of the clause simply by
creating an arbitrary classification to divide those whom the statute intends
to protect from those it does not. This would strike at the very heart of
the clause, the basic concern of which is Ďwith state legislation whose purpose
or effect is to create discrete and objectively identifiable classesí."

Judge Edmunds denigrated
the stateís argument that giving the list only to the Democratic and Republican
Parties protects "stability." Frequently, when a state government
wants to defend a law that discriminates in favor of the two major parties,
it claims that such discrimination enhances "stability." Former
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White, who wrote all the unfavorable ballot
access decisions from 1972 through 1992, always mentioned "stability"
as justification for restrictive ballot access laws. White even used "stability"
to justify banning write-in votes. However, he never defined "stability",
nor did he explain the connection between "stability" and restricting
votersí choices. Judge Edmunds simply noted that there is no connection between
the issue in this Michigan case, and the cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court
had used "stability."

Connecticut

On March 20, U.S. District
Court Judge Stefan R. Underhill, a Clinton appointee, issued a 49-page ruling
in Green Party of Connecticut v Garfield, 3:06cv-1030. The ruling denies
the motion for summary judgment in favor of the law. The law under attack
in this lawsuit sets up public financing for candidates for Connecticut state
office.

The law discriminates
against minor party and independent candidates. Although the only concrete
effect of the March 20 ruling is require a trial in this case, the ruling
suggests that the Connecticut law is likely to be held unconstitutional.

The state argued that
it may discriminate, because the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a discriminatory
public funding law for presidential elections in 1976. The case, Buckley
v Valeo, ruled 7-2 that Congress could provide for general election public
funding only for parties that received 5% of the vote in the previous presidential
election. Parties that polled 5% in the current election, but not the past
election, could also receive funding, immediately after the current election
was over.

Judge Underhill differentiated
between the federal presidential scheme, and Connecticut law. He noted that
virtually every presidential election is sharply competitive between the Democratic
and Republican nominee. By contrast, over half of all Connecticut state legislative
races are uncompetitive. Most legislative districts are either so Democratic,
or so Republican, that there is no real contest. Yet the Connecticut public
funding law funds all Republican nominees and all Democratic nominees fully,
without requiring them to collect any signatures.

By contrast, independents,
and candidates of new parties, and parties that polled less than 10% of the
vote for that office in the last election, must submit very difficult petitions,
in order to get public funding. For full public funding they must submit petitions
signed by 20% of the vote in the last election; for two-thirds public funding,
15% petitions; for one-third public funding, 10% petitions.

Judge Underhill wrote,
"The size of the 10%-15%-20% (petition) thresholds is not as problematic
as the fact that thresholds (i.e., petitions) apply only to minor party and
independent candidates in the first instance. Plaintiffs argue that it is
unfair to impose additional qualifying requirements only on minor party and
independent candidates because, in one-party dominant districts, the minor
party candidateís chances to win the general election are as good as, or better
than, the token (or nonexistent) major party candidate, yet the token major
party candidate is presumptively entitled to the full complement of public
funds, whereas the minor party candidate must show additional Ďmodicums of
supportí. That argument is persuasive."

OHIO
PETITIONING VICTORY

On March 5, the 6th
circuit ruled that Ohioís law, making it illegal to pay petition circulators
on a per-signature basis, is unconstitutional. Citizens for Tax Reform
v Deters, 07-3031. The U.S. District Court had reached the same conclusion
last year. Plaintiffs presented evidence that the law added $300,000 to the
cost of their statewide initiative.

This is the first time
any U.S. Court of Appeals has ever struck down a law that makes it illegal
to pay circulators by the signature. It will be interesting to see if Ohio
appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision says, "By
making speech more costly, the State is virtually guaranteeing there will
be less of it."

U.S.
SUPREME COURT WASHINGTON "TOP-TWO" DECISION

On March 18, the U.S.
Supreme Court issued a decision in Washington State Grange v Washington
Republican Party, 06-713. The decision said that the Washington law does
not on its face violate the associational rights of political parties. However,
footnote eleven says that other arguments against the Washington system were
not considered by the Court, and that new lawsuits may be filed without prejudice.

The Washington system
was passed by the voters in November 2004, but it has never been used. A U.S.
District Court ruled in 2005 that the system violates the Associational rights
of political parties, and did not rule on other arguments against the system.
The 9th circuit agreed with the U.S. District Court in 2006.

The U.S. Supreme Court
decision also says that it is possible the Washington system does violate
the Associational rights of political parties, but we canít know this yet.
For example, the state still hasnít even decided how the wording on the ballot,
involving political party names, will be handled. The Court said after Washington
elections officials decide how party preference labels will be shown on the
ballot, and after the state experiences the system in 2008, the parties are
free to file new lawsuits, using the evidence that has yet to be gathered.

The majority opinion
was written by Justice Clarence Thomas. The two dissenters are Justices Antonin
Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel
Alito wrote separately to say that, in general, election laws should not be
invalidated before they have been tried at least once.

Washington stateís system
provides that all candidates run on the same primary ballot in August (the
system does not apply to presidential elections). Then, only the two candidates
who poll the highest vote totals may appear on the November ballot.

Data from Louisiana (which
has used a very similar system since 1975), and blanket primary data from
Washington and California, show that no one but Democrats or Republicans ever
place first or second in the first round. The Libertarian Party had presented
evidence in this case that the 2nd place finisher in past Washington
blanket primaries typically polled 30% of the vote.

Thus, for Congressional
elections, the system may be unconstitutional on ballot access grounds. Since
1872, Congress has provided that congressional elections are held in November.
The November event IS the congressional election. A preliminary screening
election may be permitted, but the "screening" cannot be excessive.
In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Washington state law that said independent
and minor party candidates must poll 1% in the September blanket primary.
The Court said the primary vote test should be thought of as similar to a
petition. Since the Court has previously set a ceiling of 5% on ballot access
petitions, it follows that a vote test in a preliminary screening election
should also be capped at 5%.

HOW
THE WASHINGTON SYSTEM WILL WORK

The reason the Supreme
Court said the Washington system does not violate the rights of political
parties to control their own nominations process, is that there are no partisan
elections in the state (except for president, and county office in certain
charter counties). The lower courts had struck down the law anyway, since
the law does provide for party labels. But the law says that party labels
mean only that the candidate "prefers" the party he or she lists.
The Secretary of State will probably put next to each candidateís name the
slogan "Prefers the (blank) Party". Washington state has no limits
on the names of parties a candidate may "prefer"; a candidate may
say he or she prefers the "Libertarian Democratic Party", or the
"Pro-Choice Republican Party", or the "Grange Party".

MORE
LAWSUIT NEWS

Arizona: on April
15, the 9th circuit will hear Ralph Naderís lawsuit against the
law that makes it illegal for out-of-staters to circulate an independent candidate
petition, and against the early June petition deadline for independent candidates.

California: on
March 13, the 9th circuit rejected the stateís request for a rehearing
in Porter v Bowen. The original decision, which stands, said that the
First Amendment protects "vote-swap" web pages. The case originated
in 2000, when the Secretary of State threatened a web site with prosecution
for offering to match Nader voters in close states with Gore votes in non-close
states, so that they could make a deal with each other to "swap"
a Nader vote for a Gore vote.

Hawaii: a U.S.
District Court held a trial March 10-11 in Nader v Cronin, over whether
the state violates due process by disqualifying petition signatures for trivial
reasons. The trial went well, but the Judge said he wonít rule until June
1, to see if the State Supreme Court wants to act in a parallel case in that
Court.

Maryland: on March
13, Michael Schaefer asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case against
a law that puts primary candidates on the ballot in alphabetical order. Schaefer
v Lamone, 07-1143.

Mississippi: on
March 5, the 5th circuit heard arguments in Mississippi Democratic
Party v Barbour, the case over whether the Democratic Party may close
its primaries to non-members. The panel consisted of Judges Edith Jones, W.
Eugene Davis (Reagan appointees), and Emilio Garza (a Bush Sr. appointee).

Montana: Steve
Kelly, an independent candidate for U.S. House, is about to file a lawsuit
against the March petition deadline. The deadline had been in June, until
the 2007 session of the legislature moved it. The lawsuit will also challenge
the imposition of filing fees on independent candidates, another change made
in 2007.

North Carolina:
on March 17, the U.S. Supreme Court said it will hear Bartlett v Strickland,
07-689, a case which may force North Carolina to redistrict some of its
legislative and U.S. House districts in 2009, depending on which side wins.

Ohio: on March
7, Socialist Party presidential candidate Brian Moore filed a federal lawsuit
against a state law that makes it illegal for anyone to circulate an independent
candidate petition, unless the circulator is a registered voter in Ohio. Moore
v Brunner, 08-224, s.d.

Oregon: the issue
of whether petition signers have a due process right to have their signatures
counted has gone to the 9th circuit. Lemons v Bradbury, 08-35209.
The U.S. District Court had ruled that there is no such right. The case arose
when the state rejected a referendum petition, despite evidence that it had
enough valid signatures.

Pennsylvania:
the March 1 B.A.N. said that it was likely that the stateís county
distribution requirement for statewide primary petitions would soon be in
court, since it appeared that two Democratic candidates for State Treasurer
had failed to comply with that requirement (which requires 100 signatures
from each of 5 counties, as well as 1,000 signatures generally). However,
it turned out that both candidates did meet the county distribution requirement,
so the issue was put off for another day.

ARKANSAS
GREENS WILL BE ONLY COMPETITION

Arkansas has one U.S.
Senate race up this year, and four U.S. House races. In all five races, the
incumbents are running for re-election. The Green Party is on the ballot and
hopes to nominate candidates for all five races. No Democrat or Republican
is running against any congressional incumbent in Arkansas. Therefore, unless
some independent candidates qualify, the Green Party will offer the only candidates
running against any Arkansas members of Congress this year.

LEGISLATIVE
NEWS

Alaska: Rep. Max
Gruenberg recently introduced HB 402, to ease the definition of "political
party". The bill would define a party as a group that has 2,500 registered
members. Alaskaís current definition is registration of 3% of the last vote
cast, which is now approximately 7,100, but which will probably be 10,500
after November 2008. Unfortunately HB 402 was introduced too late in the session
to have a realistic chance of moving ahead, but the sponsor will reintroduce
it next year.

Connecticut: on
February 29 the Joint Committee on Government Administration & Election
heard testimony about the National Popular Vote Plan bill, HB 6018.

Illinois: Governor
Rod Blagojevich must either sign or veto the National Popular Vote Plan bill
by April 7.

Missouri: SB 797,
which deletes the requirement that petitions for a new party list presidential
elector candidates, passed the Senate Financial, Governmental Operations and
Elections Committee on March 6.

Utah: SB 126 failed
to pass, and the legislature has now adjourned. It would have imposed filing
fees on declared write-in candidates.

Vermont: on March
19, the Vermont legislature passed S270, the bill to use Instant-Runoff Voting
for congressional general elections. This is the first time any state legislature
has ever approved use of IRV in a statewide general election. Unfortunately,
Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican, will probably veto it.

Washington: HB
1534, which would have improved ballot access for minor parties and independents,
failed to advance in the Senate, and the legislature has now adjourned. Even
if it had passed, it would not have conformed to the "top-two" system
that will be used in 2008.

DEMOCRATIC
PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY RESULTS

~

Clinton

Obama

Edwards

Richrdsn

Kucinich

Biden

Dodd

Gravel

other

Alabama

223,089

300,319

7,841

1,017

-
-

1,174

523

-
-

2,663

Arizona

229,501

193,126

23,621

2,842

1,973

-
-

484

340

3,748

Arkansas

220,136

82,476

5,873

810

393

515

308

325

3,398

California

2,608,184

2,186,662

193,617

19,939

24,126

18,261

8,005

8,184

-
-

Conn.

165,426

179,742

3,424

436

846

440

912

275

3,038

Delaware

40,760

51,148

1,241

-
-

192

2,863

170

-
-

-
-

Dt. Col.

29,470

93,386

347

145

193

-
-

-
-

-
-

339

Florida

870,986

576,214

251,562

14,999

9,703

15,704

5,477

5,275

-
-

Georgia

330,026

704,247

18,209

1,879

2,096

2,538

904

952

-
-

Illinois

667,930

1,318,234

39,719

3,538

4,234

3,788

1,171

-
-

-
-

Louisiana

136,925

220,632

13,026

4,257

1,404

6,178

1,924

-
-

-
-

Maryland

314,211

532,665

10,506

2,098

1,909

3,776

788

804

11,417

Mass.

705,185

511,680

20,101

1,846

2,992

3,216

1,120

1,463

8,041

Michigan

328,309

-
-

-
-

-
-

21,715

-
-

3,845

2,361

238,168

Miss.

159,273

265,370

3,933

1,396

912

1,815

739

591

42

Missouri

395,185

406,917

16,763

689

820

626

250

438

3,342

N.Hamp.

112,404

104,815

48,699

13,269

3,891

638

205

404

715

N. Jersey

597,329

487,046

14,025

3,057

2,795

3,792

-
-

-
-

-
-

N. York

1,068,496

751,019

21,924

8,227

8,458

4,321

-
-

-
-

-
-

Ohio

1,212,362

982,489

38,305

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

Okla.

228,480

130,130

42,725

7,078

2,378

-
-

2,511

-
-

3,905

Rhode Is.

108,949

75,316

1,133

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

1,041

So. Car.

140,990

294,898

93,801

726

551

693

247

245

-
-

Tenn.

336,245

252,874

27,820

1,178

971

1,531

526

461

3,158

Texas

1,459,814

1,358,785

30,012

10,769

-
-

5,327

3,747

-
-

-
-

Utah

51,333

74,538

3,758

549

408

462

117

166

72

Vermont

59,806

91,901

1,936

-
-

1,010

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

Virginia

349,766

627,820

5,206

991

1,625

795

-
-

-
-

-
-

Wash.

315,744

354,112

11,892

2,040

4,021

1,883

618

1,071

-
-

Wisc.

453,954

646,851

6,693

528

2,625

755

501

517

861

TOTAL

13,920,268

13,855,412

957,712

104,303

102,241

81,091

35,092

23,872

283,968

REPUBLICAN
PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY RESULTS

~

McCain

Romney

Huckabee

Paul

Giuliani

Thompsn

Keyes

Hunter

other

Alabama

204,867

98,019

227,766

14,810

2,134

1,835

778

391

1,555

Arizona

255,197

186,838

48,849

22,692

13,658

9,492

970

1,082

2,257

Arkansas

46,343

30,997

138,557

10,983

658

628

-
-

-
-

987

California

1,238,988

1,013,471

340,669

125,365

128,681

50,275

11,742

14,021

9,589

Conn.

78,836

49,891

10,607

6,287

2,470

538

376

137

2,462

Delaware

22,628

16,344

7,706

2,131

1,255

-
-

-
-

-
-

175

Dt. Col.

4,198

398

1,020

494

101

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

Florida

701,761

604,932

262,681

62,887

286,089

22,668

4,060

2,847

1,573

Georgia

304,751

290,707

326,874

28,096

7,162

3,414

1,458

755

324

Illinois

426,777

257,265

148,053

45,055

11,837

7,259

2,318

-
-

858

Louisiana

67,551

10,222

69,594

8,590

1,593

1,603

837

368

811

Maryland

176,046

22,426

91,608

19,196

4,548

2,901

3,386

522

356

Mass.

204,779

255,892

19,103

13,251

2,707

916

-
-

258

2,112

Michigan

257,985

338,316

139,764

54,475

24,725

32,159

-
-

2,819

18,926

Miss.

113,074

2,177

17,943

5,510

945

2,160

842

414

221

Missouri

194,053

172,329

185,642

26,464

3,593

3,102

892

307

2,462

N.Hamp.

88,571

75,546

26,859

18,308

20,439

2,894

203

1,225

592

N. Jersey

309,842

158,692

45,699

26,913

14,446

3,135

-
-

-
-

-
-

N. York

333,001

178,043

68,477

40,113

23,260

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

Ohio

634,875

35,219

324,072

49,032

-
-

16,369

-
-

-
-

-
-

Okla.

122,772

83,030

111,899

11,183

2,412

1,924

817

317

700

Rhode Is.

17,480

1,181

5,847

1,777

-
-

-
-

117

-
-

594

So. Car.

147,686

68,142

132,943

16,154

9,557

69,651

-
-

1,051

315

Tenn.

176,091

130,632

190,904

31,026

5,159

16,263

978

738

2,024

Texas

709,477

27,624

523,553

69,954

6,174

11,815

8,594

8,262

19,209

Utah

15,931

264,956

4,252

8,846

988

613

261

211

-
-

Vermont

28,417

1,809

5,698

2,635

931

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

Virginia

244,829

18,002

199,003

21,999

2,024

3,395

-
-

-
-

-
-

Wash.

262,304

86,140

127,657

40,539

5,145

4,865

2,226

1,056

-
-

Wisc.

224,755

8,080

151,707

19,060

1,935

2,709

-
-

799

1,035

TOTAL

7,613,865

4,487,320

3,955,006

803,825

584,626

272,583

40,855

37,580

69,137

2008
PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT

STATE

REQUIREMENTS

SIGNATURES
COLLECTED

DEADLINES

FULL
PARTY

CAND

LIB'T

GREEN

CONSTI

NADER

Party

Indp.

Alabama

37,513

5,000

0

0

0

0

June
3

Sep.
8

Alaska

(reg)
7,124

#3,128

already
on

*3,448

0

0

Aug.
6

Aug.
6

Ariz.

20,449

est.
#22,500

already
on

*finished

100

200

Mar.
6

June
4

Arkansas

10,000

#1,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

June
30

Aug.
4

Calif.

(reg)
88,991

158,372

already
on

already
on

already
on

canít
start

Dec.
31, 07

Aug.
8

Colorado

(reg)
1,000

pay
$500

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

June
1

June
17

Conn.

no
procedure

#7,500

0

*500

0

0

-
- -

Aug.
6

Delaware

(reg)
*284

*5,674

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

Aug.
12

July
15

D.C.

no
procedure

est.
#3,900

canít
start

already
on

canít
start

canít
start

-
- -

Aug.
19

Florida

be
organized

104,334

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

Sep.
2

July
15

Georgia

44,089

#42,489

already
on

*3,000

0

0

July
8

July
8

Hawaii

663

4,291

already
on

*finished

*finished

finished

Apr.
3

Sep.
5

Idaho

11,968

5,984

already
on

0

already
on

0

Aug.
29

Aug.
25

Illinois

no
procedure

#25,000

*800

already
on

*0

300

-
- -

June
23

Indiana

no
procedure

#32,742

already
on

0

0

0

-
- -

June
30

Iowa

no
procedure

#1,500

0

0

0

0

-
- -

Aug.
15

Kansas

16,994

5,000

already
on

0

0

0

June
2

Aug.
4

Kentucky

no
procedure

#5,000

0

0

*300

0

-
- -

Sep.
2

La.

(reg)
1,000

pay
$500

already
on

already
on

47

0

May
22

Sep.
2

Maine

27,544

#4,000

0

already
on

0

0

Dec
14, 07

Ag 15

Maryland

10,000

est.
32,500

already
on

already
on

0

0

Aug.
4

Aug.
4

Mass.

est.
(reg) 40,500

#10,000

*500

already
on

65

0

Feb.
1

July
29

Michigan

38,024

38,024

already
on

already
on

already
on

probly
on

July
17

July
17

Minnesota

110,150

#2,000

0

0

0

0

July
15

Sep.
9

Mississippi

be
organized

1,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

Jan.
10

Sep.
5

Missouri

10,000

10,000

already
on

0

finished

0

July
28

July
28

Montana

5,000

#5,000

already
on

650

already
on

0

Mar.
13

July
30

Nebraska

5,921

2,500

*9,100

already
on

already
on

0

Aug.
1

Aug.
26

Nevada

5,746

5,746

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

July
3

July
3

N. Hamp.

12,524

#3,000

*2,400

0

0

0

Aug.
6

Aug.
6

New Jersey

no
procedure

#800

0

0

0

0

-
- -

July
28

New Mex.

2,794

16,764

already
on

already
on

*finished

finished

Apr.
1

June
4

New York

no
procedure

#15,000

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

canít
start

-
- -

Aug.
19

No. Car.

69,734

69,734

*100,000

9,000

100

0

May
16

June
12

No. Dakota

7,000

#4,000

already
on

0

already
on

0

Apr.
11

Sep.
5

Ohio

20,114

5,000

*uncertain

0

*10,500

0

Aug
21

Aug.
21

Oklahoma

46,324

43,913

400

0

0

0

May
1

July
15

Oregon

20,640

18,356

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

Aug.
26

Aug.
26

Penn.

no
procedure

#24,666

*1,000

*50

*0

0

-
- -

Aug.
1

Rhode Isl.

18,557

#1,000

0

0

0

0

May
30

Sep.
5

So. Caro.

10,000

10,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

maybe
on

May
4

July
15

So. Dakota

8,389

3,356

*0

0

*already
on

0

Mar.
25

Aug.
5

Tennessee

45,254

25

in
court

in
court

in
court

0

unsettled

Aug.
21

Texas

43,991

74,108

already
on

*5,000

*0

0

*May
26

May
12

Utah

2,000

#1,000

already
on

*0

already
on

0

Feb.
15

Sep.
2

Vermont

be
organized

#1,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

Jan.
1

Sep.
12

Virginia

no
procedure

#10,000

*1,000

*1,000

0

7,500

-
- -

Aug.
22

Wash.

no
procedure

#1,000

canít
start

canít
start

canít
start

canít
start

-
- -

July
26

West Va.

no
procedure

#15,118

0

already
on

*8,600

0

-
- -

Aug.
1

Wisconsin

10,000

#2,000

already
on

already
on

0

0

June
2

Sep.
2

Wyoming

3,868

3,868

already
on

0

*250

0

June
2

Aug.
25

TOTAL
STATES ON

28

21

*17

0

~

~

#partisan label is OK
(other than "independent").
*entry changed since March 1, 2008 B.A.N.
"Nader" column refers to independent petitions, except that Nader
is qualifying the Independent Party in Hawaii and New Mexico.

LIBERTARIAN,
CONSTITUTION PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDERS

During late March, both
the Libertarian and Constitution Parties gathered considerable publicity,
because some well-known individuals hinted that they will try to obtain those
partiesí presidential nominations. Alan Keyes is expected to declare for the
Constitution Party nomination on April 15. Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel
joined the Libertarian Party on March 25 and on March 26 said he would try
to win its presidential nomination. Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr says
he is thinking about entering the Libertarian race as well. Finally, Mary
Ruwart, who is well-known inside the Libertarian Party, said on March 17 that
she will seek the nomination.

Vermont Progressive Party
chairman Anthony Pollina announced his gubernatorial candidacy on March 13.
He is very well known throughout Vermont and conceivably could be elected.
He founded Rural Vermont in 1985, to work for a more favorable property tax
for farmers. In 1991 he became Policy Advisor to Bernie Sanders, then the
independent Congressman for Vermont. In 1996 Pollina became director of Vermont
PIRG (Public Interest Research Group).

Pollina polled 9.59%
for Governor in 2000. In 2002 he polled 24.76% for Lieutenant Governor. The
Democratic Party of Vermont does not have a well-known candidate for Governor
so far this year, and some Democrats have indicated they will support Pollina.

NADER
CHOOSES MATT GONZALEZ

On February 28, Ralph
Nader announced that Matt Gonzalez will be his vice-presidential running mate.
Gonzalez is a former San Francisco County Supervisor, who changed his registration
to "Green" while he was in office. In 2003 he ran for Mayor (the
election was officially non-partisan) and polled 47% in a two-person race.
He re-registered "Independent" recently.

INDIANA
CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION

On March 11, Indiana
held a special U.S. House election to fill the vacant 7th district
seat. The results: Democratic 53.2%; Republican 43.8%; Libertarian 2.9%. When
this seat was up in 2006, the results had been: Democratic 53.8%; Republican
46.2%.

PROHIBITION
PARTY

Although the Prohibition
Party continues to be split into two competing national groups, both groups
have agreed that Gene Amondson is the party presidential nominee.

ALASKAN
INDEPENDENCE PARTY WILL CHOOSE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE

The Alaskan Independence
Party has appeared on the ballot in every Alaska state election since 1970,
but it had never entered a presidential race until 2004, when it nominated
Michael Peroutka, the Constitution Party nominee. The Alaskan Independence
Party held a state convention on March 14-16 and decided to again nominate
a presidential candidate. The choice will be between whomever the Constitution
Party nominates (that national convention is in late April), and Frank McEnulty.
McEnulty started out as an independent presidential candidate this year, and
he is now also the presidential candidate of the New American Independent
Party (a party without ballot status in any state so far). McEnulty attended
the Alaskan Independence Party convention.

SUBSCRIBING
TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

If you use Paypal, you
can subscribe to B.A.N., or renew, with Paypal. If you use a credit
card in connection with Paypal, use richardwinger@yahoo.com.
If you donít use a credit card in conjunction with Paypal, use sub@richardwinger.com.